IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Tue, 16 January 2018 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F800131513 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 07:17:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oi2_6gC2mg_z for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 07:17:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 068B9131564 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 07:15:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=998; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1516115732; x=1517325332; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FwEwvcjdJC4OQeMgFpszqOIhpwh71E1LtvVWh0S4vmg=; b=YimwZR5wb9FRv+A38V6tY12dIZ6wb7lsXG6NwSVOiUckAuNdMaMUopgP Up1GM6zBXryyQpVIOx9eUJ5afRmgxkxYS/iI5+b9YfjTzBgUzAkt9qxC7 SvEuBtRaWN5XQKINRHg2Q8vPF+SOiJmW/WBgFvVn1dC+cWgGoXZy+E7cy Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BhBADoFV5a/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYUbJ4QTixiPbplCCoU7AoUgEwEBAQEBAQEBAWsohSQBBSMPAQVRCQIYAgImAgJXBgEMBgIBAYovh2ydcIIniUoBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBASKBD4cZgWkpgwWDLwSFBoJlBaNklUuMJYdrjxyICYE8NyGBUDIaCBsVPYIqhFdBN40/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,368,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="1482884"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jan 2018 15:15:28 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.131] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-131.cisco.com [10.63.23.131]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0GFFStm025130; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:15:28 GMT
To: Vladimir Vassilev <vladimir@transpacket.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, netmod@ietf.org
References: <2cde8b64-0455-a513-4719-feb61c87a952@bogus.com> <aa7a1449-fd6e-e4c6-7568-41061c09d9f2@transpacket.com> <20180116.115606.561861432247288407.mbj@tail-f.com> <e94d1ed3-e859-3167-501f-ce23e77804df@transpacket.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <bd0d6765-6fbb-d5be-8ac3-ba482bc3164c@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:15:27 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e94d1ed3-e859-3167-501f-ce23e77804df@transpacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/njL4KoQhqI1dhWIzeWLKar98Y9k>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:17:23 -0000


On 16/01/2018 15:08, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 01/16/2018 11:56 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
>> Vladimir Vassilev <vladimir@transpacket.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>>
>>> 4. This bit I found confusing. I propose this change to unambiguously
>>> describe the current pyang format.
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>>           *  for a leaf-list or list
>>>           [<keys>] for a list's keys
>>> NEW:
>>>           *  for a leaf-list or list without keys
>>>           * [<keys>] for a list with keys
>> Hmm, wouldn't it be better to use [] for a list w/o keys?
> Yes I also agree this improves readability at the cost of slight 
> redundancy increase and modification to format of diagrams already 
> used in RFCs. Your call.

I like the idea of using [] for a list without keys, to cleanly 
differentiate list vs leaf-list.

I presume that they don't turn up that much in practice, so presumably 
not many RFC's would be impacted.

Thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email